UWEMAJO
CHAPTER 5: Unpacking community members’ narratives
This chapter discusses the narratives presented by community members in Pete in relation to overarching literature on CBNRM interventions. Guided by the themes explored in chapter four, this chapter unpacks each theme by discussing the main insights that the narratives brought to the fore. The themes are analysed and presented based on concepts and issues of political ecology.
These include factors such as the socio-political relations, socio-economic conflicts and
historical factors that have played a role in conservation efforts of Pete’s CoFMA. Additionally, the analysis shows the cross-scale interactions and the issues of scales across time that are evident in the conservation efforts.
5.1. Recentralising conservation and resource management
This section discusses the issue of recentralisation of conservation and resource management in the context of Pete’s CoFMA.
5.1.1. Government influence in CoFMAs
CBNRM interventions are expected to devolve control and management of natural resources to local community members (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999). Ideally, such a process would empower community members to take control of the natural resources that they have a vested interest in their sustainable use (Tsing, Brosius & Zerner, 1999; Rabe & Saunders, 2011: 153).
In the context of Pete’s CoFMA, the narratives presented by several respondents indicate that decentralisation of control and management of the forest and its natural resources are
theoretically present. However, in practice such devolution of control and management is lacking.
As Ribbot, Agrawal and Larson (2006) point out that, CBNRM initiatives in paper show that authority over natural resource management is decentralised; however in reality, such transfer of power is yet to materialise. More importantly, and what this thesis aimed to show is that, in practice, the government still has significant control over the operations of these CoFMAs. Such a situation has disheartened the community members in actively engaging in conservation efforts on their village land. It is not to say that community members are unable to resist such
involvement from government, what was apparent from the narratives is that community members are fearful of the potential repercussions of their active resistance.
Ribbot, Agrawal and Larson (2006:47) note that in some instances grassroots groups, NGOs and community representatives are in fact under the direction and control of government and
61
international conservation agencies. This is similar to what occurs in the context of Pete’s CoFMA. From the respondents’ narratives, it is apparent that the NGOs (JECA) the village conservation committee (specifically leaders of the Pete CoFMA) and the village leader (Sheha) are all directed by the government through its Forestry Department. Directives are provided from the Forestry Department to the JECA officials, who then give directives to the Sheha and the CoFMA leaders to implement. As pointed out earlier, the Sheha is appointed by the government, making her/him a government employee. In other words, the Sheha’s decisions are controlled by the government.
5.1.2. Exclusion of local people in decision making
The disregard of community members’ knowledge about conservation activities and the decision making processes involved in conserving the forest and its natural resources in Pete is at times rather deliberate. Community members are often excluded from the decision making process of conservation in their village.
As can be gleaned from respondents’ narratives, community members at times felt isolated from conservation activities. Some even commented that they (community members) felt that the government disregarded their knowledge on conserving and sustainably using the forest and its resources. In theory, community members are encouraged to participate in the entire process involved in conserving the forest. However, in practice such participation is constrained by pre- determined rules and guidelines invoked by the government. As Chhotray (2004) points out that the end result of conservation activities under CBNRM initiatives are often pre-established by government actors and community members are urged to participate, merely to gain their consensus to conserve.
In order for conservation efforts to become decentralised, it requires several factors to be met.
Firstly, it requires an accountable government that does not deliberately interfere with
community-based management of the forest and its resources. Secondly, it requires a community that is allowed to fully engage in all process involved in decision made regarding conservation activities on their village land. Thirdly, it requires the community to be fully informed on all matters relating to conservation of the forest and its resources (Benjaminsen, Goldman, Minwary
& Maganga, 2013: 3). Unfortunately, in this case study, such decentralisation factors are lacking as pointed out by respondents.
62
From the narratives provided by community members in Pete, the study has revealed that CBNRM efforts in theory are decentralised. However, in practice, the government continues to control and manage several aspects of the forest’s conservation. Such centralised practice of conservation in Pete points to a process of recentralisation of conservation efforts.
5.2. Impinging on people’s rights
The process of setting up the JCBNP led to the dispossession of community members off their land to make space for the Park’s boundaries. As can be gleaned from the narratives, some
community members have had to leave their family farms to conserve the Red Colobus Monkeys.
Consequently, the displaced community members have been crammed into small patches of land outside the forest’s boundaries. Conservationists, international and national leaders have used the argument that CBNRM strategies promote a common good for all (community members get development and the natural resources are simultaneously conserved). However, the common good argument is used to justify dispossessing community members, which in itself is a violation of people’s rights to an adequate living situation (Kelly, 2011: 696, as cited in La Rocco, 2016).
The narratives provided by the respondents suggest that not only were community members in Pete dispossessed off their lands; but they have also been dispossessed from the natural resources that their livelihoods depended on for generations. Salum (2009: 3) posits that when the National Park was set up, several pieces of land were appropriated by the government so as to acquire the 5000-hectare land space necessary to establish it. This appropriated land was empty, community members were living on it and relying on it for their livelihood. Subsequently, the previous residents of this land have been left destitute and left to seek out alternative means to support their livelihoods. In Support of the narratives presented that the JCBNP has forcefully removed community members off their land, Brockington and Igoe (2006) argue that protected areas such as these National Parks, play a crucial role of evicting indigenous people from their land.
The creation of the National Park also led to the erection of physical (fences, security guards, park rangers etc.) and imposition of invisible borders (through rules and regulations restricting access to the park). These borders further restricted community members living alongside the Park. These borders create a sense of insecurity amongst community members and a sense the control over the forest and its natural resources is under the government’s power. Even at desperate times when the only source of survival is in the forest, crossing these borders means
63
that community members are at risk of being arrested and punished for trespassing a land that once belonged to them. The creation of boundaries ‘orders and others’ those involved (van Houtum & van Naerssen, 2002). In this context, the Park’s boundary ‘orders’ community members to not cross its borders and ‘others’ by ostracising them from accessing the natural resources that their livelihoods depend on. Thus, controlling their movement in and out of the forest. Such exclusionary practices resonate to the conservation processes that took place during the colonial period. As Colchester (2004) and Garland (2008) argue that, the current
conservation efforts (CBNRM initiatives) continue to imbue colonial ways of conservation by actively restricting community members from accessing their land and the natural resources they have relied on for generations.
Dispossession from land and restrictive access to natural resources introduces further impacts than the mere physical dislocation of community members. Studies have suggested that
contextual social impacts of protected areas such as the JCBNP are lacking (Brockington, Duffy
& Igoe, 2008). This study aimed to highlight some of these social impacts in the context of Pete from community members’ personal narrations. These impacts include the struggle to make a living, loss of ancestral land, insufficient compensation and the resultant impoverished life for community members.
From the narratives, community members generally felt that they have been robbed off their main source of livelihood. As a result, they have had to scour for alternative means to make a living for themselves and their families. Prior to the establishment of the national park, local community members still had certain rights to access and use the resources from the forest.
Presently, such rights are heavily restricted (Salum, 2009). Furthermore, the land space left for the community members to use for various activities (farming, charcoal production, butterfly farming) is either too small to practice meaningful farming, too insufficient for all 3000 community members or is being taken by greedy government officials who are more powerful than community members in Pete.
Other community members have argued that even if they are compensated for giving up their farms for conservation purposes (e.g. as narrated by members of UWEMAJO), such
compensation is not sufficient enough to outweigh the value of these farms to them. Land (in the form of farmland), is considered a form of wealth, which monetary compensation cannot
64
substitute. In particular, most of the farm owners were under the impression that monetary compensation was an unreliable source of income. Whereas from their farms, they are able to continue producing food to sustain their livelihoods and even sell excess produce to generate income. The same group of respondents pointed out that by forfeiting their farms for
conservation purposes, another form of environmental damage occurs. Considering that these farms are supposed to be left undisturbed in order to conserve the Red Colobus Monkeys, they are not care for. Consequently, the land slowly degrades over time due to a lack of care. Such a situation could have been avoided had farm owners been given access to care for their land.
Other respondents indicated that conservation efforts through setting up of CoFMAs impinged on community members’ rights in several other ways. One particular way was the imposition of new rules and regulations by various government officials (whether involved or not directly involved in the Forestry Department) without sufficient consultation with local community members. When these situations occurred, community members were urged not to retaliate due to a lack of power and influence on the part of the community members. What this indicates is that, in addition to being dispossessed off their land and restricted from accessing natural resources that they depend on, community members are further restricted for fighting for their rights. One of the main failures of CBNRM initiatives as pointed out by Murombedzi (2004), is that it often oversees the potential of the elite in a society to capture benefits for themselves, as they are more powerful than the average community member.
From the narratives gathered in this study, it has become apparent that many of the respondents were under the impression that if they do not actively engage in conservation activities, or at least show compliance to the conservation ideology, then their village would be left without development. Some have gone as far as stating that without engaging in CBNRM initiatives, the government would forget that Pete exists, in as far as development in concerned. In this case, although the majority of the respondents supported the existence of the CoFMAs on their village land, they did so out of fear of losing out on the prospects of receiving further social
development goals. As Twyman (2000: 330) posits that, the participatory approaches used in CBNRM initiatives (such as CoFMAs in Zanzibar) create a situation whereby community members are reluctant to contest the government’s decisions of introducing such conservation initiatives. Such reluctance is out of fear of losing the benefits that are promised to accompany such conservation initiatives.
65
The narratives provided by Pete community members suggest that they are aware of the
importance of conserving the environment and the natural resources. However, most of them felt that the government and the conservation agencies were more concerned about saving the forest and the Red Colobus Monkey than protecting the interests of the community members. Whether these interests are regarding the safety of school going children, or about sufficient alternative livelihood opportunities that would support those who have been restricted from the forest, or the further dislocation of village members by land thieving officials. The common consensus
amongst community members is that they have now become second class citizens after the forest and the colobus monkeys in the Park.
5.3. Lack of cooperation amongst stakeholders
CBNRM projects often involve several stakeholders with varying interests and goals. As afore mentioned, in the context of the Pete’s CoFMA, stakeholders include the GoZ (through its various representatives), CoFMA leaders, JECA, UWEMAJO, the Sheha and the overall community members. CBNRM scholarship often assumes that cooperation and consensus amongst stakeholders involved in co-managing natural resources naturally exists (Saunders, 2011a: 59). Cooperation here relates to the idea that all key players abide by the same rules and have the same interests and goals in relation to natural resource management (Johnson, 1997) However, in practice, cooperation of such a nature is difficult to achieve amongst different stakeholders. This ultimately affects the success of conservation efforts. The narratives from Pete’s CoFMA pointed out that lack of cooperation amongst the stakeholders is prevalent and threatens the progress of conservation efforts.
Varying interests and goals amongst stakeholders in Pete have negatively affected cooperation and the achievement of the conservation goals. Saunders (2011a: 13), argues that cooperation in the management of natural resources is often hindered due to stakeholders’ varying positions, personal interests and power relations. As evident in Pete’s case, lack of cooperation has hindered the progress of conservation efforts. Respondents pointed out that the lack of information sharing amongst key players often times causes conflict in the success of
conservation efforts in their CoFMA. Some argued that they felt that other stakeholders were withholding information out of worry that the other person might take advantage of potential opportunities (better jobs or financial benefits). Such sentiments tend to translate into
66
resentfulness and eventually this would interfere in the way stakeholders co-manage the natural resources in the forest.
Grimble and Wellad (1996) argue that projects such as natural resource management, often fail due to non-cooperation and opposition of interests and goals amongst key players. The authors continue to argue that in many cases CBNRM projects are perceived to be successful. However, such success is only made possible by impinging on less powerful stakeholders, mainly local people. As some of the narratives from Pete pointed out, community members are suffering due to the misinformation and mishandling of eco-tourism revenues. This ultimately has impacted the development of the community at large.
Varying interests, goals and perceptions of how conservation should be undertaken leads to dysfunctional relations amongst stakeholders. Dysfunctional relations and the inability to reach amicable solutions regarding these differences, greatly impacts the overall conservation and development goals (Castro & Nielsen, 2001; Adams et al., 2003). The narratives gathered from community members in Pete suggest that the success of the CoFMA is greatly hindered due to the varying interests and goals of stakeholders involved. Additionally, local people (being the less powerful stakeholders) are often overpowered in such situations.
5.4. Weaknesses of CoFMAs
Narratives from community members in Pete revealed that in practice, CoFMAs have several weaknesses. These weaknesses are discussed below.
The introduction of CoFMAs has been backed up by the idea that community members will be incentivised to conserve their environment and the natural resources in them if they are provided with alternative livelihood measures. Specifically, for community members who rely on the environment to sustain their livelihoods. In the case of Pete and other villages buffering the JCBCA, the main source of alternative livelihood activities is in the tourism industry. However, findings suggest that the tourism industry has failed to supply sufficient livelihood activities.
Subsequently, many community members find themselves landless and restricted from accessing the natural resources in the forest that used to sustain their livelihoods. Cleverdon and Kalisch (2000) have argued that tourism has been incorporated into CBNRM initiatives as a go-to source of alternative livelihood sources. Yet, it does not adequately absorb all community members in dire need of such alternative activities. Ultimately, those who have not been absorbed are forced
67
to illegally access the natural resources in the forest, risking their safety and freedom in the event that they are caught by law enforcement officers.
Additionally, the establishment of CoFMAs has failed to protect the forest from overuse and environmental damage. Respondents have argued that the forest continues to face heavy degradation by community members who lack other means of sustaining their livelihoods. One respondent went as far as saying that in five years’ time, children of Pete will be told stories that there once was a forest but community members destroyed it. Dallu (n.d) argues that the JCBNP is under immense threat due to the undiscerning tree cutting by community members
surrounding the National Park. Community members are forced to do so, as the alternative livelihood activities available are insufficient to accommodate all community members.
Evidently, Insufficient livelihood activities, dispossession of land and restrictions from accessing natural resources are collectively factors that force local people to continue illegally accessing the forest for survival. In agreement to this, Colchester (2004) comments that, the fact that local community members residing on buffer zones have lost their rights to accessing and using the natural resources that they previously had access to affects their attitudes towards conservation in general. These restrictions create a form of resentment on the part of community members which leads to an increased rate of damage to the environment and its natural resources. CBNRM efforts must acknowledge the fact that not all local resource users will be absorbed by the alternative livelihood activities proposed. To curb such a problem, other solutions must be implemented. Otherwise, community members will not have the incentive to conserve and to sustainably use natural resources (Colchester, 2004). In support of this, Igoe (2006) says that the concept of CBNRM is premised on the idea that community members who have been displaced off their land would eventually be absorbed by the market (in this case the tourism market).
However, in many cases, these community members are not adequately absorbed by such markets.
One of the main sources of alternative livelihood strategy proposed by the government is through tourism. However, even this source is not accessible by all 3000 plus community members in Pete. Even when the tourism revenues are received by the Pete CoFMA to fund social services (water and electricity supply and building schools and clinics), community members complained that supply of social services is not enough in itself. These narratives align with the findings that